Loading...
07-1258,59,60 Plan Review Comments2.pdf CE ITY OF DMONDS PLANREVIEWCOMMENTS PLANNINGDIVISION 425.771.0220 DATE: July 30, 2008 TO: Thomas Thompson – AIA ttsquared@gmail.com FROM: Kathleen Taylor, Associate Planner RE: Plan Check #s 2007-1258, 1259, 1260 Project: 3 New Retail Buildings Project Address: 23330, 23332, 23334 Highway 99 On behalf of the Planning Division, I have reviewed the additional materials submitted for the above building permit applications. In order to complete my review of the application, please respond in writing to the following items: 1.Roof Plan. It appears that a roof deck will occupy the majority of Building A’s roof, but there will not be any decks on Buildings B and C. In reviewing the design of the building, I need have an understanding of what neighboring properties will be looking down on. How will the deck be used? Will it be used for outdoor eating facilities? Will it be used for customers or employees or both? Will tables and chairs be on the roof deck? Please respond. 2.Design Review. The colored elevation view is very attractive. Thank you for submitting it. a.Lighting. I still need a lighting plan that demonstrates compliance with ECDC 16.60.030C3. Also provide a schematic of the exterior light fixtures. b.Trash Enclosure. The trash enclosure as described on the site plan sounds attractive. It should fit in well with the design of the buildings. However, please provide elevation views of the trash enclosure – one elevation view of the side and one elevation view of the entrance. The trash enclosure will likely be visible from above by the condominiums just west of the property, so some type of roof for the trash enclosure would be appropriate. Please respond. 3.Landscaping. A revised site plan was not submitted. Please respond to the items below. a.The landscaping within the 4-foot street setback and adjacent to the parking lot must be Type IV per ECDC 16.60.030A12a. Please redline the Landscape Plan. P@ LAN REVIEW COMMENTS FOR AZEDMONDS P2 7/30/2008 AGE b.In scaling it appears that the required width for the landscaped areas has been met, but to clarify please label the minimum width of the landscaped areas along the property lines. c.For the landscaped area along the western property line (northern portion only – 10 feet in width), it does not appear to meet the requirements of ECDC 20.13.030A, which requires 2 rows of evergreens and shrubs 3.5 feet high. The landscape plan shows one or other in this narrow area, rather than both. The other option is to plant on an earthen berm 15 feet in width. Please revise the landscape plan accordingly. d.Tree Grates for Street Trees. The Engineering Division will give you the appropriate size requirements, and the landscape plan should include this information. 4.Pedestrian Walkways. a.Striping alone does not comply with requirements of ECDC 16.30.030B3a, which states, “Pedestrian walkways in parking lots shall be delineated by separate paved routes that are approved by federal accessibility requirements and that use a variation in textures and/or colors as well as landscape barriers”. I don’t think additional landscaping would be necessary, but you might want to take a look at the Bartell th Drugs parking lot at the southwest corner of Edmonds Way and 100 Ave W. They used a different color and texture to delineate the pedestrian walkways. They may have stamped the concrete; I am not entirely certain. 5.Height Calculations. Thank you for responding to my request for height calculations. When a corner of the height rectangle falls off the property, you must average the two points where the height rectangle intersects the property line. This appears to be the case for buildings A and C. Refer to the handout that I sent you earlier. After making the revisions, recalculate the average grade and maximum elevation for buildings A and C. Then redline the elevation views for each building with the average grade, actual elevation, and maximum elevation. 6.SEPA Review. I am still waiting to receive the SEPA materials listed below. a.SEPA Checklist. See attached Handout #P71 . b.Adjacent Property Owners List. Handout #P2 attached. c.Affidavit. Attached to Handout #P2. d.Fee. There is a $420 processing fee. 7.Lot Aggregation. I still have not received a response to this item. The Snohomish County Assessor records suggest that the site is all one parcel, but the legal description suggests that it is two parcels. If it is in fact legally two parcels, a lot line adjustment will be required to legally combine the two lots. Please respond. We can discuss the application process, fees, etc. if necessary. P@ LAN REVIEW COMMENTS FOR AZEDMONDS P3 7/30/2008 AGE Please make all submittals to a Development Services Permit Coordinator, Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, or Friday, 8:00 am to 4:00 pm. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me at 425.771.0220. I work a part-time schedule. If I am not available, please ask to speak with the planner-on-duty. Thank you.